HARRIS v. MAHALLY et al

Filing 13

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE LINDA K. CARACAPPA. THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED WITH PREJUDICE, AND THERE IS NO PROBABLE CAUSE TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY. THE CLERK OF COURT SHALL MARK THIS CASE CLOSED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR ON 1/16/18. 1/17/18 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE' AND E-MAILED. (ky, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
__________________________________________
TYRONE HARRIS,

:
:
:
v.
:
:
LAWRENCE MAHALLY, et al.,
:
Respondents.
:
__________________________________________
Petitioner,

No. 2:17-cv-01688

ORDER
In April 2017, Petitioner, proceeding pro se, filed a proposed petition for writ of habeas
corpus with the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which transferred the petition to this
Court. See ECF No. 1. On November 30, 2017, the Honorable Linda K. Caracappa issued a
Report and Recommendation, which recommends that Harris’s petition be dismissed and that a
certificate of appealability not be granted. ECF No. 10. No objections to the Report and
Recommendation have been timely raised. 1 Accordingly, this Court must “satisfy itself that there
is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b) advisory committee Notes; see also Henderson v. Carlson, 812 F.2d 874, 878 (3d Cir.
1987) (the district court must “afford some level of review” when no objections have been
made). Having done so, this 16th day of January, 2018, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation is APPROVED and ADOPTED;
2. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED with prejudice;
3. There is no probable cause to issue a certificate of appealability;
4. The Clerk of Court shall mark this case CLOSED for statistical purposes.
BY THE COURT:

/s/ Joseph F. Leeson, Jr.___________
JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR.
United States District Judge

1

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) provides, in pertinent part, that “[w]ithin 14
days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file
specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.”
1
011618